Socially responsible life cycle assessment: organizational activity for the greater good
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Traditionally, life cycle assessment (LCA) has focused on environmental aspects, but integrating social aspects in LCA has gained traction among scholars and practitioners. This study aims to review key social life cycle assessment (SLCA) themes, namely, drivers and barriers of SLCA implementation, methodology and measurement metrics, classification of initiatives to improve SLCA and customer perspectives in SLCA. Design/methodology/approach A total of 148 scientific papers extracted from the Web of Science database were used and analyzed using bibliometric and content analysis. Findings The findings suggest that the existing research ignores several aspects of SCLA, which impedes positive growth in topical scholarship, and the study proposes a classification of SLCA research paths to enrich future research. This study contributes positively to SLCA by further developing this area, and as such, this research is a primer to gain deeper knowledge about the state-of-the-art in SLCA as well as to foresee its future scope and challenges. Originality/value The study provides an up-to-date review of extant research pertaining to SLCA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it